259:
YouTube's servers. Also, the geographical distance between the location of the incident and this IP would suggest to me that you're wrong. The only violation here is your attempt to bend the rules to get rid of an article you don't personally favour. The article is as valid as many other internet meme articles and should stay - your attempt to use the rules around original research have failed and now you're resorting to other tactics. Exactly the kind of thing the wikipedia community can do without.
64:
A short clip of someone getting hurt is far beneath the suitability for article status on
Knowledge (XXG). Surely we are not going to have an article every time a YouTube video gets of views, even if someone in the media reports on it? I support internet meme articles that have stood the test of the
194:
There are not multiple, verifiable, reliable, independent third-party publications on this. For one the BBC report just restates the local article, and you have forgotten that multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage. It still fails the given reasons
258:
If you do some basic research, for example a whois or a visit to this IP's talk page, you'll see that this is part of a bank of IPs used by hundreds of public libraries in the UK. Are you suggesting that this IP posted the original video to YouTube? I'd like to know how you found the IPs from
209:
I disagree. The BBC story may well be the result of secondary research, however the Surrey Online article is a new development and features interviews with the protagonists after the event. These are therefore different sources that inform parts of the
78:. Even though I support the growth of the YouTube article, this has one news report (when multiple, independent, reliable, non-trivial, third-party sources are needed), and uses a discussion forum as it's secondary source...which by
288:
It isn't that hard to get an ip from a user account on YouTube. Now if you are not the exact person, I appologize, however you are making assumptions on motive which you should not do, and this still fails
52:
49:
275:
226:
183:
17:
240:
After an IP search, it seems the IP 193.25.116.40 is also the ip of the person whom posted this to YouTube. We may be dealing with
331:
319:
307:
250:
201:
159:
135:
109:
92:
69:
346:
36:
58:
345:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
124:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
271:
222:
179:
263:
214:
171:
267:
218:
175:
167:
Have addressed stated concerns above about sources by adding multiple, verifiable third party sources
315:
with the benefit of hindsight, talk of this in the media seems to have bubbled under somewhat.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
156:
294:
298:
83:
152:
148:
129:
119:
101:
290:
241:
79:
316:
302:
245:
196:
144:
87:
66:
328:
65:
time (ie. wasnt forgotten about 2 days later), but this isnt one of them.
339:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
349:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
297:, and possibly the sources/citation part of
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
59:Crawley Moped Roundabout Video
50:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
1:
332:05:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
320:23:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
308:15:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
251:14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
202:17:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
160:02:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
136:14:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
110:14:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
93:13:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
70:12:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
53:09:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
366:
256:Response to above comment
207:Response to above comment
342:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
86:is not acceptable. --
134:
280:
266:comment added by
234:
231:
217:comment added by
188:
174:comment added by
118:
357:
344:
305:
279:
260:
248:
232:
230:
211:
199:
187:
168:
132:
127:
122:
106:
90:
34:
365:
364:
360:
359:
358:
356:
355:
354:
353:
347:deletion review
340:
303:
261:
246:
233:Sign your posts
212:
197:
169:
130:
125:
120:
102:
88:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
363:
361:
352:
351:
335:
334:
322:
310:
282:
281:
253:
235:
204:
189:
162:
138:
112:
95:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
362:
350:
348:
343:
337:
336:
333:
330:
326:
323:
321:
318:
314:
311:
309:
306:
300:
296:
292:
287:
284:
283:
277:
273:
269:
268:193.25.116.40
265:
257:
254:
252:
249:
243:
239:
236:
228:
224:
220:
219:193.25.116.40
216:
208:
205:
203:
200:
193:
190:
185:
181:
177:
176:193.25.116.40
173:
166:
163:
161:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
139:
137:
133:
128:
123:
116:
113:
111:
107:
105:
100:, per nom. --
99:
96:
94:
91:
85:
81:
77:
74:
73:
72:
71:
68:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
341:
338:
324:
312:
285:
262:— Preceding
255:
237:
213:— Preceding
206:
191:
170:— Preceding
164:
140:
114:
103:
97:
75:
63:
45:
43:
31:
28:
157:HResearcher
327:per nom.
153:Martinp23
149:SB_Johnny
143:per nom,
115:Delete —
104:SB_Johnny
317:Mallanox
286:Comment'
276:contribs
264:unsigned
244:here. --
227:contribs
215:unsigned
210:article.
184:contribs
172:unsigned
117:per nom
238:Comment
192:Comment
145:Bschott
131:rtinp23
325:Delete
313:Delete
295:WP:WEB
151:, and
141:Delete
98:Delete
76:Delete
67:Remy B
46:delete
329:*drew
304:Brian
299:WP:OR
247:Brian
198:Brian
89:Brian
84:WP:RS
16:<
293:and
291:WP:V
272:talk
242:WP:V
223:talk
180:talk
165:Keep
155:. --
82:and
80:WP:V
108:|
301:--
278:)
274:•
229:)
225:•
195:--
186:)
182:•
147:,
48:.
270:(
221:(
178:(
126:a
121:M
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.